Talk:Battle of Nahrawan

Views

This article is not written objectively. It contains too many subjective opinions by using words such as: their hatred, cowardly, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.184.4 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the person above. The article is terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axatoramus (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This article contains stuff which may offense some Muslims because that stuff's prejudicial. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it must give us a neutral viewpoint. It's better to quote someone if there's difference of opinions.Modest Muslim (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3534. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Readability and justification

In the next few weeks, I'll hopefully improve the readability of the article and further emphasize the atrocities committed by the Kharijites. Albertatiran (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: I read the article, which is a GA. The readability is fine, though there were several instances of missing articles ("the" and "a") and minor prose issues. I fixed them (as far as I could tell). If you plan on making any significant additions, like details of alleged atrocities, you may want to discuss them here first and ensure only modern, reliable, secondary sources are used as references. Al Ameer (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Atrocities committed by the Kharijites"? This shows you are not impartial enough to edit Kharijite related articles. It also shows that your knowledge on Kharijites comes from polemical works. Please see Hagemann, Gaiser and Kenney's works before editing anything related to the Kharijites.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Ok, I understand your concern. I plan on using reliable secondary sources for my edits. Albertatiran (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Prelude:

• Madelung argues that Kharijites' acts of terror happened around the time that Ali set out for Syria (p. 254). Otherwise, he argues, Ali would have not asked them to join his army. I think that makes sense and I've rearranged some of the text in Predule to better match this view (and rewrote some of the sentences).
• I've replaced "murdered" with something more accurate but equally neutral, see [Hazleton,2009] or [Abbas,2021]. Edit if you disagree or, better yet, leave a comment here. Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained removals

If I have not used reliable secondary sources or haven't been faithful to the sources, you can point that out here. I highly doubt that to be the case. So, instead of removing sourced material and angry rants, consider adding your views to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You added Hazleton (a journalist) and Rogerson (a popular author) to an article on Islamic history. How are these "reliable secondary sources" on a subject like this? Then you made sure to emphasize that Ali and his partisans were eager to avoid fighting. Simple stating of facts is fine. But why do you have to emphasize? --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Had my edits degraded the quality of the article in any way? Again, if my sources are poor or if I haven't been completely faithful to them, please share that here. Otherwise, baseless and angry rants are not a sound basis to remove content. Albertatiran (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe AhmadLX explained it very well. Also, starting the discussion with "atrocities committed by the Kharijites" is not a promising first sight. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: First sights may be misleading and I wouldn't rely on them for judgment. Notwithstanding my language on the talk page, I believe that I was faithful to the source in my edits, e.g., Madelung does actually detail multiple attempts which were blocked by the Kharijites leaders, hence my choice of words. About the sources, neither MOS:Islam nor WP:RS require the sources to be "authoritative", e.g., Madelung. So why the double standard here? It could be that my objection about the sources reflects my lack of experience with Wikipedia but I'd still appreciate your thoughts about it. Albertatiran (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Unjustified reversal

Hi AhmadLX, I have trouble understanding your comment about this reversal, particularly 'This article is not about Kharijites, bot about Siffin, notr a out Ali-Mu'awiya disoute. Ever heard "Focus"?' Could you then list some of the 'many other problems' with the article that justify in your mind reversing the revision? I hope we can resolve this issue politely and considerately in the spirit of Ramadan. Albertatiran (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX, some of the comments below are constructive and I can address them, as well as those for which I've asked you for additional details below. The rest though are far from fair, proportionate, unbiased, objective, and respectful. I've asked God for forgiveness for both of us. Albertatiran (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• This article is about the battle of Nahrawan, not about the formation of the Kharijites, or explaining their beliefs and practice's. You have basically turned this article from that on Nahrawan battle to one on the Kharijite sect and their dispute with Ali. (See WP:Summary Style)

Could you be more specific, please? Much of my first paragraph is already in the current article. Their slogan was already in the article and I gave more details. 'Their beliefs and practices' is largely about their views towards Ali, Uthman, and Mu'awiya, which are related.

I think I have stated it as clearly as possible. This is the main issue, the rest below is just appendices to it (i.e. the remainder of the issues are contained in the irrelevant information that has been added), so I will answer this, for now. I believe you have wrong notion of what is an encyclopedia article. I will try to explain it as best as I can. The title of the article is the subject. The article is supposed to contain everything important on to that subject, and any closely related information. For example, an article on a religious sect would contain Background to the Origin, Origin itself, Subsequent History, Doctrines, Influence on other sects, Contemporary relevance (if any). An article on a battle event would contain Background info on what led to the battle, Any immediate events/battle preparation, Sequence of the battle itself, and its Aftermath. In this article, the objective is to describe the Battle of Nahrawan. So the relevant background is a brief overview of the formation of the Kharijites at the battle of Siffin; the goal is to give a succinct summary of what happened there and how Kharijites formed from the events of the battle. The goal is not to dive into detailed discussion of the battle of Siffin itself or of the Kharijites formation. The reader should be just given enough information on who Kharijites were and how did they originate. For more detailed information we have dedicated articles on Siffin and Kharijites. The background section or any other section of this article is not for providing detailed discussion of Siffin or the doctrines on the Kharijites. The current form of the article just gives enough information on the background and moves to events immediately preceding the battle and then the battle itself. This follows aftermath of the battle itself (what happened in its consequence: abandoning of the Syrian campaign, Ali's murder, Mu'awiya's accession. A brief on the subsequent history of the Kharijites). That is all that is relevant to this battle. Neither the details of Siffin, nor the formation of the Kharijites and their doctrines, nor the allegiances to Ali etc.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this good comment. I suggest we continue this after the month of Ramadan... Albertatiran (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX, thanks again for this comment. In Veccia Vaglieri's six-page-long article about the Battle of the Camel, less than a page is the description of the battle. The rest is detailed and thorough background and analysis, going all the way back to Aisha's pilgrimage and Uthman's assassination. This is not to say that your approach is incorrect but that I'm not wrong, as you claim, in wishing to expand this article to show the interplay between the different characters and their motivations or why these former allies lined up against each other in battle. I hope this comparison answers your comment. Albertatiran (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

In whole EI2 you found Vaglieri's example, who was well-known for her verbosity? What she did is not a precedent. Look at the rest of EI2 articles and Wikipedia policies. Isolated examples are no precedent. If you wish to pursue this further, I would suggest get wider consensus. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX, here is another example from a quick search: The Badr article in EI3 has less than a paragraph about the actual battle. I'm not claiming that all EI battle articles are "verbose" (it's a mixed bag) but rather the point is that this is clearly an insufficient explanation (and almost surely not your true motive) for blocking my edits. God is the best judge. Albertatiran (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In trying to justify your insertions by searching EI2 for articles with irrelevant detail, you basically acknowledge that your insertions are off-topic irrelevant verbosity. So your argument is that they are still fine since certain EI2 articles do that. They are not. I have already pointed you to WP:Summary Style, and I encourage you to read it. We give as much background as necessary and relevant to the subject of the article. It doesn't have to be shorter than the main topic's content itself (the background of the current version is still larger than the battle section), but it must state only as much of the background and related material as necessary for the main topic. Otherwise why not start this article with Muhammad's death, or the beginning of his prophetic career, or the origins of pre-Islamic Arab tribalism? All these influenced later chain of events which ultimately ended in Nahrawan. You could trace back chain of preceding events to any given event to infinity. Same goes for future events that a given event influences. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, and one more thing. The Badr article in EI3 has more stuff than the battle itself because it is not an article about the battle of Badr, but about the place of Badr. The battle that took place there is just one part of the history/geography of the place. EI3 has no articles about battles, and they append accounts of famous battles to articles on those places. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• You once again try to emphasize that it was Kharijites who wanted to fight and not Ali. This may or not be true, but whichever the case, you must not emphasize the innocence of one warring party (maybe read WP:NPOV a few times)

If you could be more specific, I'd be more than happy to address any cases of NPOV violation.

• Then you have section on Views dedicated to justifying Ali's war on them

Nearly half of that section is criticism of Ali. There I collected all the views and comments I could find in my sources.

• Starting with Keith Leinstein's articles in early 1990, there has been been consensus in the field of Kharijite and Ibadi studies that Muslim accounts on Kharijites history and violence are distorted and theologically motivated (this applies to all Islamic history, but more so in the case of the Kharijites since their version of their history has disappeared). You have put aside all scholarship on Kharijites (Lewinstein, Kenney, Crone, Gaiser, Hagemann) and focused on Madelung 1997. Seriously? And McHugo? who is not even an actual academic historian of Islam, let alone Kharijite studies.

I've diligently covered all the views I could find in all the sources available to me. That said, I do cite Madelung 1997 often for his comprehensive collection of primary reports, which shouldn't be an issue at all. If you think certain key works are missing, please list them here. I'd be happy to take them into account.

• "Even though he received a nearly-unanimous public pledge of allegiance..." See, insistence again that Ali's election was justified. We write from disinterested perspective, not for legitimizing theology. Also, it is completely irrelevant to this article how "justified" his election was. The purpose of the background section is to give the readers brief overview of the events leading upto to the event, not to settle theological points.

That Ali received a nearly-unanimous public pledge appears in multiple reliable sources and does not prove or disprove his legitimacy. The former is a historical fact and the latter seems to be your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written.

• "Mu'awiya, Uthman's cousin and his governor of Syria". Again, dogma presented as history that Mu'awiya was not really governor of Syria for he did not recognize Ali. That he remained governor of Syria is a historical fact. Whether he was rightful governor or not belong to a religious blog not to an encyclopedia

Maybe I'm mistaken, but governors were appointed by the current caliph. It's a historical fact that Mu'awiya was dismissed from his post almost immediately after Ali took power.

• The background section, which as said before is to give summary of events leading to the event, is turned into summary of Siffin, followed by a huge section on the formation of the Kharijites. Again, this is not an article about Kharijites. The details of Misar Fidaki, Zayd Tai, al-Ash'ath etc are completely irrelevant to this article

Siffin is obviously the single most important event related to this topic. The Kharijites were among the belligerents in this battle. How do you arrive at your conclusions above? How can you say that these Kharijite/Kufan leaders deeply involved in the battle are 'completely irrelevant to this article'.

• The first para of Prelude with discussion of oaths of allegiance likewise is irrelevant to this article, as is much the second para which goes to length to insist that arbitration verdict is unjust. A more disinterested discussion of this issue can be discussed in the article on Siffin, but what it has to do with this article? Why not write entire history of Ali's caliphate into this article then? The only thing relevant to this article is that the verdict was opposed by Ali which meant resumption of his campaign and then Kharijites come into picture. The rest is completely irrelevant. You've turned this into an article on Ali.(See again WP:Encyclopedic style)

As for the first paragraph of Prelude, the second pledge to Ali after the Kharijties left is clearly relevant. As for the second paragraph, there is one sentence there about the outcome of the arbitration. I agree that this sentence can be removed. (I also searched for other views besides Madelung's but didn't find any.) The rest of what you claim above appears highly out of proportion and exaggerated, not just above but in most of your comments here.

• "They thus committed many murders, not even sparing women." Again emphasis on dehumanizing Kharijites and justifying Ali's attack. Also, where does Della Vida say this?

This sentence is almost copied verbatim from the source (Encyclopedia of Islam). The rest is your interpretation of it.

• "In one instance, they are alleged to have disemboweled a farmer's pregnant wife, cut out and killed her unborn infant, before beheading the farmer." Fictions. See article on Kharijites.

I have followed the source here, adding that it's an allegation, which wasn't in the source. If you can be more specific, then I'd be happy to survey other views as well.

• That the Kharijites were "eliminated by the beginning of the eighth century" is plain wrong, no matter who says that. We have evidence of Sufri and Najdi Kharijites well into the 10th and 11th centuries (See Kharijites)

It'd be better to give both views (Lewis' and Kennedy's) as I have done and then add the evidence for both claims. I'd be happy to add more evidence supporting the second date from the Kharijites article.

• Unnecessary and constant characterization of historians as American, Pakistani, modern, Suuni, Shia, Shia-leaning. Why do we need that? It is perfectly fine to introduce historians as historians/scholar/academic, but Pakistani/American etc is irrelevant.

Ok, this is easy to address.

• What is Veccia Vaglieri, L. (2012a)? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is how Brill cites the article here but this can be easily updated to show the year the work was published.

• Aftermath is not so concerned about aftermath of the battle as about analysis of Kufan tribal milieu. A section on aftermath would discus what transpired after the event under discussion, and how that event influenced future events. Kufan rivalries and tribal dynamics predate the battle. Kufan disobedience to Ali, competition amongst the qurra and the ashraf etc has nothing to do with the aftermath of the battle.

The current version says Ali wanted to march on Syria but his troops disobeyed him. My version expands this and adds the why, i.e., the competition between the qurra and the ashraf. If you were to be fair and objective, you'd agree that my aftermath section is not focused on the analysis of Kufan tribal dynamics, as you now claim.

• Unnecessary verbosity.

• "He invited the Kharijites to join him in a letter addressed at two of their leaders, namely, Zayd ibn Hisn and Abd-Allah ibn Wahb." Encyclopedia articles are not a collection facts that one adds whatever can be found in the sources. It is essential to good encyclopedic writing to be concise and avoid unnecessary detail which adds little to the content.
• "pursued by one Abul-Aswad al-Du'ali, who caught up with them at al-Jisr al-Akbar. When the night fell, however, they managed to escape and safely reached Nahrawan." If nothing transpired and the Kharijites got their way anyway, what is the point of this?
• "As for the second charge, the report continues, ..."

Your comments here will be addressed. Above, 'the report continues' shows the uncertainty in what follows. I could have used 'is reported to have said'.

• Esposito is cited for the claim that Kharijites inspire modern Muslim fundamentalism, but the expert on this very subject, Kenney, or Gaiser for that matter, who have argued that labeling of fundamentalists as neo-Kharijites has little to do with ideologies and goals of the two groups, is absent (again see Kharijites article). Modern Muslim fundamentalism is mainly directed against the west and non-Muslims, has its roots in nationalism, US-led wars, US support of dictators in the Middle East etc, whereas Kharijites' war was against the Muslims for a whole host of reasons far removed from the 21st century. On their attitude to non-Muslims and women, see Kharijites article and compare that with modern fundamentalists.

What articles do you want me to cite here in addition to Esposito?

• " For them, without repentance, any transgression meant renouncing one's faith and the perpetrator was thus subject to ex-communication, warfare, and death." Blanket statements like this show lack of research and are a consequence of ignoring specialized literature. This was a characteristic of the Azariqa. Did the Ibadis believe that, or the Muhakima, or the Sufris? Not even Najdis after they founded their state in Arabia.

This particular 'blanket' statement is faithfully borrowed from Esposito. 'Them' refers to the Kharijites at the time (not Ibadis, etc. who are irrelevant to the article) and the statement is correct. This can be clarified to address your comment.

• For Kharijite use of kufr and unbelief see, again, Kharijite article. It was only the Azariqa who held non-Kharijites, also non-Azariqi Kharijites, as apostates and infidels. Other groups held range of opinions.

Were the Azariqa present at the time of Ali? Are they relevant to the article? How do you suggest I address this comment?

• "However, the two caliphs firmly believed in the privileged status of the Quraysh tribe, which thus contradicted the egalitarian views of the Kharijites,[72] who especially rejected Quraysh's claims to leadership.[32]" This is a great example of WP:SYNTH: combinig two or more sources to say something that none of them says.

Madelung says that the Kharijites followed the sunna of the two caliphs but overlooked the fact that the two caliphs believed in the privileged status of the Quraysh, which contradicted their egalitarian views. Kennedy similarly says that the Kharijites opposed the privileged status of the Quraysh. These two consistent views are listed back to back. Is this objectively 'a great example of WP:SYNTH'?

• There are other issues of mischaracterizations and flawed reading of the sources, but they are moot since the whole section of Kharijite origins and doctrines is irrelevant to this article. It is basically a POV fork. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What are those issues? If you can be specific, I can address them.

New image

@Cplakidas: @Al Ameer son: @AhmadLX: You gentlemen might be interested in this new image I just uploaded.[1] - LouisAragon (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: It's a cool image, thanks for adding. I would want to trim the caption though.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Sure thing. Feel free to trim down as you see fit. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)